The decision in Biogen v Medeva was handed down by the House of Lords on the night of Halloween , more than 20 years ago. The case is a landmark. That decision was based on the so-called ‘Biogen insufficiency’ principles, set down by Lord Hoffmann in Biogen v Medeva and neatly noted. Honble Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section D of the Patents Act.
|Published (Last):||10 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||9.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.77 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It seems to me, therefore, that a more accurate way of stating the inventive concept as it appeared to Aldous J. But the specification in Biogen described only one method of making the molecule by recombinant technology and disclosed no general principle. He essentially saw one product claim as being very much the same as any other product claim but, that clearly was not the case and was expressly spelled out by Lord Hoffman in his judgment.
As no fuel, or a reduced amount of fuel, is being used when the generator is off or its output reduced, this does not waste the resource. The grounds are that the patent should be revoked as being not new and that the claims of the impugned patent do not involve an inventive step. Certainly, in the great majority of cases, there will be no need to complicate the enquiry by looking outside the four conditions. The claim 3 has the inventive features as quoted here: Enercon India limited is a person interested or not according to the Act under which this proceeding has been initiated.
New and useful b. Secondly, that Biogen was not entitled to the priority date of Biogen 1 because it did not “support” the invention claimed in the patent section 5 2 a. On page 37, para 11, he states that proposed claims 1, 2, 3, 9 and 12 are not sufficiently supported by the specification because the disclosure would not enable him to work the invention.
For present purposes, it touches the matters in issue at three different points. Mehra was authorized by the Board resolution dated to sign the pleadings i.
Invention claimed would be obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the state of the art, when no technical advance over the prior art, is established, then the patent lacks inventive step and will become invalid. BiogenBiogen insufficiencyevent. This was a patent for an plasmid suitable for transforming a bacterial host which included an expression control sequence or “regulon” which could enable the expression of foreign DNA as a recoverable polypeptide.
Under normal conditions reducing the power output to zero and c connected is not particularly attractive it would be easier to just disconnect. As per the directions of the Honble High Court of Madras, all the miscellaneous petitions have been heard and decided along with the main application.
Further the Madras High Court had also directed the board to consider the issues raised in the miscellaneous petition along with the revocation application. For example, in the night the wind power is available in abundance but the load is less because bioogen appliances are switched off.
More than the patentee deserves? No problem – The IPKat
How art and law can work together beyond the marketplace. This judgement has not been cited yet. Both branches of knowledge were then advancing at a considerable pace. If, therefore, the inventive concept was simply, as Aldous J. The continuing incredible adventures of Dr Randell Therefore meedeva the said cited US patents and NPL1 document, a person skilled in the art can arrive at the invention claimed in the claim 1 of the impugned patent.
In particular I am glad to adopt the proposed reconciliation of sections 14 5 and 72 1 of the Patents Actwhich eliminates a difficulty expressed by the Court of Appeal in Genentech Inc. In view of the above, applicant submitted that, at a given rating of a power source, such as a wind meseva, the load in the grid network, which is drawing current from the turbine, may change drastically.
Claim 6 as amended is to: Read, post comments and participate!
Sufficiency: when is a product a product – Biogen v Medeva revisited? – Lexology
In the case of a product claim, performing the invention for the purposes of Section 72 1 c means making or otherwise obtaining the product.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.
How many page-views has the IPKat received? A polypeptide which causes the immune system to produce an antibody is said to display “antigenicity. Do stripes need to be kept free for use? Therefore we find subject matter of invention is lacking inventive step and is obvious.
City Research Online
Aggrieved by this order, the respondent appealed in the Madras High Court, which was heard and disposed of by the Honble High Court directing this Appellate Board to consider and dispose of this preliminary issue along with the main matter.
Subscribe to the IPKat’s posts by email here Just pop your email address into the box and click ‘Subscribe’: He must, however, be prepared to display a reasonable degree of skill and common knowledge of the art in mrdeva trials and to correct obvious errors in the specification if a means of correcting them can readily be found and arrive at the result They could not be greatly enhanced by using infected laboratory animals because the virus infects only human beings and a few higher primates like chimpanzees.
Experts for the Claimants were not deemed particularly helpful and their evidence was largely rejected.